Good luck with that.
Now that's she's voted on the floor, she has that seat for life.

You gotta wonder what's going through his head.

Um. No. -1

so lemme see if I got this right - you spend months telling your wacko gun nut followers that 'second amendment' solutions are on the agenda and hint that gee, it'd be a REAL shame if somehow a bunch of your enemies got themselves dead next election cycle, then wait for someone to actually take the hint and try to blow one of your hit list away. Once that happens, you wait for the PR backlash to die down, re-district your opponent's constituency out from under them, and then seize control of the seat.

Sound about right so far?

Rhino_man: Gerrymandering out the Congresswoman that got shot because of a crazy person listening to the violent right-wing political rhetoric...

So, gerrymandering out of sympathy is preferable? How about they get rid of the artificial 435 member limit in the House? Then gerrymandering would be less of an issue.

FTFA: Antenori lost a 2006 run for the congressional post, finishing second to last in a primary field of five Republicans.

So, the guy's an also-ran who failed miserably in his first attempt, but thinks getting a head start on the rest of the Republican field gives him an advantage, despite irrational outrage that someone'd have the audacity to run against her.

He's the kind of guy I'd vote in a primary just so I could vote against him. I normally vote in the Democratic primary where I live, and it's mainly to vote against certain people.

//But the reverse is true; I voted in the Republican primary in 2000 specifically to vote against McCain

Rhino_man: They could try just not gerrymandering.

The hell is this crazy people talk?

You mean we shouldn't rig districts for the benefit of a political party? GTFO

Aarontology: Rhino_man: They could try just not gerrymandering.

The hell is this crazy people talk?

You mean we shouldn't rig districts for the benefit of a political party? GTFO

hey, Giffords is weak and vulnerable. the Republicans see this as a perfect opportunity to strike! remember, mercy is for the weak because Jesus commies socialism Obama muslim!

or something. the Republican-speak translator breaks down with I try to run it through a translator.

Rhino_man: They could try just not gerrymandering.

Arizona has two minority-majority districts. The State of Arizona cannot dilute the minority population in either of those districts. If CD 7 is 44% Hispanic in 2010, it must be at least 44% Hispanic in 2012. They're required by Federal law, and mandatory authority to gerrymander to keep those districts' racial makeups from changing.

/Philosophically, I agree with you
//Blame the Texas Democrats, who wanted to create Texas districts winnable only by white Democrats

Rhino_man: Seriously, wtf is that?

Compliance with Federal law.

Rhino_man: ... so change the law.

In this case, considering there's three Supreme Court decisions backing up elements contained in the law, it's not that simple.

Weaver95: hey, Giffords is weak and vulnerable. the Republicans see this as a perfect opportunity to strike! remember, mercy is for the weak because Jesus commies socialism Obama muslim!

or something. the Republican-speak translator breaks down with I try to run it through a translator.

I mean, I kind of think that she should step down considering she's not in any real state to represent her constituents.

But redistricting her out of office because they're too cowardly to run against her is low.

Rhino_man: Seriously, wtf is that?

And that's not even the craziest in the country. Look at some of this crap:

Link (warning: slideshow)

Aarontology:

But redistricting her out of office because they're too cowardly to run against her is low.

par for the course though.

Weaver95: par for the course though.

Indeed.

Rhino_man: The judiciary branch is supposed to interpret the law and judge how it interacts with the Constitution. Just because they ruled it to be Constitutional and in accordance with previous laws doesn't mean that the law cannot be changed.

When the law codifies an implicit right or privilege, not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, you can't simply repeal it, and repeal the rights and privileges it provides.

Would you feel the same way about repealing Title IX of the Civil Rights Act (1965, I think?) which guarantees equality in funding accomodations at educational facilities based on gender? It'd also mean that any state that currently allows abortion could outlaw it simply by repealing the law permitting it.

/I'm sure University of Florida fans would be all behind repealing Title IX, but...
//They'd probably support repealing Georgia's statehood, too

Rhino_man: So no, I don't feel the same way about repealing Title IX... but repealing Title IX would be legal by the same Legislative process that allows changing the law that mandates gerrymandering.

You sound like a perfect modern judicial nominee. For either party. Laws and jurisprudence are less important than how people feel about them. Got it.

Also, with regard to states banning abortion... Federal law stipulates that the states cannot do that. Since Federal law supercedes state law, it's a different matter entirely.

[citation_needed.jpg]

Rowe v. Wade, and the susequent decisions say that a state can't interfere with those decisions between a woman and a doctor (until some indeterminate point where "compelling government interest" attaches), not that the procedure is legal.

But no, it's not a different matter, at all. If a law provides protections or privileges (often incorrectly referred to as "rights,"), that are implied in the Constitution, confirmed as such by the judiciary, it's messy when it comes to replacing or repealing those laws.

Rhino_man: The Judiciary cannot prevent the Legislature from changing or repealing laws, but it can invalidate new laws or amendments to existing laws that are unconstitutional or in conflict with existing law.

True. And the process by which an existing law is repealed is by passing a new law that repeals it. If that new law does not guarantee the same privileges of the previous law, as codified in written jurisprudence, the new law is invalid. Even if the Republicans' repeal of "Obamacare" had passed the Senate ,and had been signed by the President, someone who wanted to buy insurance based on the requirements of the law would still have standing. And once the mandatory-issue clause is upheld, game over, really. There's a reason why you won't see an "Irish need not apply" sign in an HR department, and it's not just because society has moved passed it. National origin is a protected class; repealing the Civil Rights Act that codified that doesn't change that it's a protected class. In this case, it's the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I can see a repeal of that just flying through the Senate, and begging for a presidential signature. o.O

Shaw v. Reno (1993).

One of the few coherent opinions written by Justice O'Connor. It's good news if you 're a minority, and really care about someone who looks like you representing you (unless you live in a big city, and there's guys like Charlie Rangel around), or you're a Republican. It's bad news for white Southern Democrats.

/And who ended up being Speaker of the House next Congress?

Republicans take advantage of an addled woman? Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Usually they just divorce them

cabbyman: Epoch_Zero: Republicans take advantage of an addled woman? Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Usually they just divorce them

At least they don't kill them like Kennedy did...

BUT BUT KENNEDY

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: Giffords was quoted as saying "Bumblebee potato bag sandwich *drool*"

I'm going to hell for laughing at that.

/among several thousand other reasons

Rhino_man: For example: when looking at Virginia's congressional districts, you'll notice that most of the immigrant population of Centreville, VA and some of Fairfax, VA have essentially no say in who their representative is, because they got lumped in with the racially homogenous, extremely rural, mountainous areas of Northwestern Virginia. They are heavily outnumbered by traditional Republican voters in VA-10, while they have far more in common with neighboring VA-8 and VA-11.

That's to partially accommodate VA-3, where I live. Whomever the Democrats nominate wins that district. It's been that way since 1993. It's difficult to see the boundaries on your map scaled to Fark-friendly size, but, essentially, it starts in the predominantly African-American areas of Richmond, snakes down to Petersburg, then down the James River to parts of Newport News, Hampton, Portsmouth, and Norfolk. My district is the only minority-majority district in the Commonwealth, and they have to work hard every ten years to expand it while simultaneously protecting the long-time incumbent, and keeping the race numbers correct.

I like my representative, even though I normally vote against him. I've met him several times, and think he's a good guy. I disagree with him on some issues, agree on others (mainly the places he departs from party orthodoxy, but not necessarily to the Republican side).

But he certainly doesn't represent my interests most of the time, or the interests of most people in his district most of the time. He'll be in Congress until he retires or dies, whichever comes first. Since 1994, I can think of only twice he's had a Republican opponent. In 2008, his margin of victory was something like 97%.